ReviewSeminars in hearing2018
Disruptive Hearing Technologies and Mild Sensorineural Hearing Loss I: Accessibility and Affordability Issues.
Review in Seminars in hearing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical issues in direct-to-consumer healthcare: A scoping review.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Objective and Subjective Benefit of Direct-to-Consumer Hearing Devices in Middle-Aged Adults.American journal of audiology · 2022Article
- Article
- The Early Intervention of Hearing Loss in Adults.Seminars in hearing · 2018Article
- Toward the Future of Early Intervention for Adult Hearing Loss.Seminars in hearing · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Limited accessibility to and affordability of hearing health care (HHC) and hearing aids (HAs) are two reasons why people do not seek treatment for their hearing losses. This article is the first in a series of two and discusses affordability issues (i.e., billing models, cost-effectiveness, insurance coverage, and reimbursement) related to and provides a historical context for the Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act of 2017. This piece of legislation supports development of a new class of over-the-counter HAs that represents a disruptive technology that may transform the HHC industry by reducing costs specific to the device. A discussion of ethical issues and the importance of using evidence-based practice guidelines set the stage for the second article in this series, which reviews relevant research on issues pertaining to persons with mild hearing loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.